JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the 1923 Act') has been filed by the non-claimant the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Dholpur (hereinafter 'the non claimant Corporation') against the award dated 27.12.1993 passed by the Workmen' Compensation Commissioner, Bharatpur (hereinafter 'the Commissioner'), whereby the Commissioner has found the respondent No. 2-claimant Smt. Vimla Devi (hereinafter 'the claimant') entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs. 54,579/-. The non claimant Corporation has been directed to deposit the said amount of compensation awarded in the Court of Commissioner within sixty days of the award. The facts of the case are that Kishan Singh husband of the claimant was engaged as Driver with the Corporation at Dholpur. Kishan Singh was required by the appellant Corporation on 21.1.1990 to deliver bus RNP-208 from Dholpur to Roadways workshop Ajmer. Kishan Singh safely reached the Roadways workshop Ajmer on 21.1.1990 without any incident. He contacted the Junior Engineer and left the vehicle at the Ajmer workshop as directed. It however appears that after delivering the bus at the Ajmer workshop, Kishan Singh met with his friends and went out for a personal trip on a motor cycle. The motor cycle was involved in an accident near Gogal, Ajmer consequent to which Kishan Singh expired of the injuries sustained in the accident. 2. In these circumstances a claim petition was laid by Kishan Singh's widow-the claimant under the provisions of 1923 Act. On service, the claim petition was opposed by the non claimant Corporation. It was stated that the death of Kishan Singh had no causal connection with his employment as the driver with the RSRTC or even with the delivery of the bus by him from Dholpur to Ajmer and thus there was no ground for grant of compensation for his death caused in an accident when he was out on pleasure trip under the 1923 Act. It was emphasised that Kishan Singh was required in the course of his employment to deliver the bus from Dholpur to Ajmer, which he done without any untoward incident and subsequently if in the course of an outing with his friends he was injured in motor cycle accident and died as a result of injuries sustained therein, it could not occasion any liability on the non-claimant employer the Corporation. 3. 3. The Commissioner however vide judgment dated 27.12.1993 proceeded to grant compensation for a sum of Rs. 54,579/- to the claimant-the widow of the deceased Kishan Singh and directed that in the event the amount of compensation so granted were not deposited with the Commissioner within sixty days of the award, it would carry interest. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. Mukesh Verm, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has submitted that the death of Kishan Singh in a motor cycle accident on 21.1.1990 was totally unconnected with his employment as Driver of the Corporation. It was submitted that the deceased Kishan Singh had completed his duty of delivering the bus from Dholpur to Ajmer and was free to return to his home at Dholpur. It appears that instead he had gone out with friends on a motor cycle which was involved in an accident. Kishan Singh had died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. It was submitted that in the circumstances obtaining the death of deceased Kishan Singh could not even remotely said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment with the Corporation. Consequently the claimant was not entitled to any compensation therefor under the provisions of 1923 Act. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in case of Executive Engineer, 19th Division, RCP Bikaner v. Heera Ram, 1981 ACJ 368 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore, III, (2006) ACC 356 (SC). It has been submitted that in the admitted facts of the case and in the obtaining state of law there was no causal connection between the death of deceased Kishan Singh and his employment with the Corporation, or duties assigned to him. It was prayed that hence the impugned award dated 27.12.1993 quashed and set aside. 5. No one has appeared on behalf of the claimant, in spite of service. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Corporation and perused the impugned award dated 27.12.1993. 7. Section 3 of the 1923 Act reads as under:- 3. It was prayed that hence the impugned award dated 27.12.1993 quashed and set aside. 5. No one has appeared on behalf of the claimant, in spite of service. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Corporation and perused the impugned award dated 27.12.1993. 7. Section 3 of the 1923 Act reads as under:- 3. Employer's liability for Compensation.-(1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable-(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days: (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs; or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen; or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyothi Ademma (supra) has held that under Section 3(1) of the 1923 Act it has to be established that there was some causal connection between the death of the workman and his employment and if the workman dies of a cause unrelated to his employment, the employer would not be liable to pay compensation therefor under the Act of 1923. The same view has been taken by this Court in the case of Executive engineer 19th Div. RCP Bikaner (supra) wherein this Court held that to find out whether the death of workman was caused in the course of employment and arose therefrom, a relevant enquiry had to be made whether the thing/act occasioning the injury/death of a workman was within the sphere of his employment or otherwise incidental to it. In para No. 16 of its opinion the judgment in the Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Smt. Yamunabi, AIR 1952 Bom. In para No. 16 of its opinion the judgment in the Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Smt. Yamunabi, AIR 1952 Bom. 382 was approved wherein it was observed as under:- "The expression 'arising out of his employment' suggests both the time as well as the place of employment. The expression 'out of' conveys the idea that there must be some sort of connection between the employment and the injury caused to a workman as a result of the accident. That, to my mind, is the literal and strict construction of the Section. But in my opinion, the words 'arising out of his employment are' wide enough so as to cover a case, where there may not necessarily be a direct connection between the injury caused as a result of an accident and the employment of the workman. And there may be circumstances... which would go to show that the workman received personal injury as a result of the accident arising out of his employment." 9. In the context of state of law as detailed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as also by this Court, the question for consideration of this Court is whether the death of deceased Kishan Singh was occasioned for reasons attributable to his employment and arose therefrom or was otherwise on account of a risk incidental to his employment. It is on record, as also found by the Commissioner, that the deceased Kishan Singh was engaged as a Driver with the non-claimant Corporation and was required to deliver the bus from Dholpur to RSRTC's workshop at Ajmer. This he did without any untoward incident and safely delivered the bus at the workshop in Ajmer. Thereafter having discharged his duties, Kishan Singh appears to have gone out with his friends on a motor cycle, which unfortunately was involved in accident resulting in injuries to the person of Kishan Singh and ultimately his death. The cause of death, thus in my considered opinion, neither arose from or out of Kishan Singh's employment with the Corporation nor could be stated to be on account of any risk incidental to his employment or the specific job assigned to him. Contrarily it was wholly unrelated and independent of any cause related direct, or indirect or even remotely to his employment. Contrarily it was wholly unrelated and independent of any cause related direct, or indirect or even remotely to his employment. Consequently the very statutory foundation for laying a claim petition under the 1923 Act was not fulfilled and wholly absent. The learned Commissioner overlooked this important aspect of the matter and erred in passing the impugned award. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned award dated 27.12.1993 is quashed and set aside. The appeal is therefore stands allowed accordingly.Appeal Allowed. *******